david rigby

I re-read the referenced other thread, and suggest the arguments therein lead me to believe that waivers may be an "overreaction" to someone's objection to participating in the Plan. The EE does not create - or design - any employee benefit: (a) If there is a k-feature, it's pretty easy to elect no deferrals; (b) If there are ER contributions, there is no requirement that the EE (upon severance of employment) take anything; (c) If it's a DB plan, the EE is not required to "apply" for retirement benefits (yes, the RMD is somewhat different). In a nutshell, I'm unsure the ER has to do anything when an EE expresses a "religious objection" as suggested in the OP; the obligation to do something, or not do something, belongs to the EE.

It may be the payroll provider (and someone else) is unclear what a "catch-up" contribution really is. It does not exist until hitting a limit (eg, the 402g deferral limit, or a plan-imposed limit, etc.)

McKay Hochman no longer exists. https://benefitslink.com/cgi-bin/pr/index.cgi?rm=press_release;id=50737

I'm confused. Why are you involved with his rollover?

Maybe other problems also. IMHO, this implies a need to research whether it's appropriate to use waivers. Maybe, start by looking for other discussion threads with a similar theme. For example,

Does the form and/or the Plan include a statement about divorce automatically changing/invalidating a beneficiary election?

Another possible approach is for the consultant (that is, you) to educate ABC about why they should include the XYZ service. Just my opinion.

Either one works, but my experience has been (2).

Thanks for trying to help Peter, but I'm skeptical, especially about the "no review" part. There is a corollary example: acceptance of a J&S waiver. Suppose the J&S form and/or beneficiary waiver form form is returned with spouse signature. Since the ER is unlikely to have any knowledge about that particular handwriting, ERISA created the requirement for a witness. If this form has no witness signature (or the employee brings in the form and asks the HR rep to signoff on the already signed form), the ER must (IMHO) reject the form entirely. Of course, it can be true the ER representative who accepts the form might have no knowledge about the details, so somewhere up the line the form must be reviewed, which can give rise to a rejection of the submitted form. If such review is not immediate, the Plan is bound (as stated above by CuseFan) to follow the plan document and the law. The original question is about liability, which sounds like something a court might decide, so I'll decline an opinion on that part of the question, except to say "maybe". In my view, the ER is always "on the hook" to review the form before anything is paid.

Third.

C.B got it mostly correct. There is a possibility, which might not be common, that the "adjustment factors" (as specified in the plan) do not directly reflect the actual ages of participant and/or spouse. I've seen a few plans that define those factors much simpler; for example, the 50% Joint-and-Survivor factor defined as 95%, the 75% Joint-and-Survivor factor defined as 90%, and the 100% Joint-and-Survivor factor defined as 85%. However, if the factors do reflect actual ages, I estimate the difference between using YOB38 vs. YOB48 to be about 3-4%.

I'm not familiar with this term.

This is picky, but stated in case less-informed readers stumble across this thread. Code G applies to a Direct Rollover, not quite identical to "rolled it over".

Did you ask for legal fees? If so, the answer might be an award of zero. If not, you/attorney must determine if you have any opportunity for additional claim. Could this mean something simple like, "your lawyer screwed up"?

In general, plan sponsors (and the TPAs they hire) will do better to follow the plan document rather than the broker.

What? No FORTRAN?

Ask if a nearby law school and/or local bar association sponsors a "pro bono day"?

Umm ... the plan document will answer this question. Look for the definitions of "beneficiary" and "spouse". Hint: your "not sure when" comment might be important.

In my observation, most documents do not define "retire" or "retirement", at least not directly. Likely, in your example, it means a severance of employment on or after attaining whatever eligibility for any specific commencement date. Perhaps the plan defines Normal Retirement and/or Early Retirement?

Assuming your facts presented are complete (not being snarky, many postings here are "too brief"), she gets re-instated in the DB plan and offered whatever payment options the plan includes. The plan might not offer a lump sum option. BTW, if she was "...paid a monthly benefit..." and "...checks were never cashed...", that implies she (or someone) made an election to commence and also communicated a correct mailing address. Forgive me, but I'm suspicious; maybe the EE ignored the requests to complete an election form? First question might be, "What happened with the 401(k) plan?"

Clarification: you can't change the plan year after the end of the short plan year (ie, 12/31 in this example). BTW, if you want to show some consulting chops, you will ask the client why. Sometimes, there can be good reasons to leave the plan year unchanged even when the company fiscal year changes. (Asking why does not mean you are taking a position or being accusatory, just trying to help.)

Duplicate posts, for the purpose of getting wider readership, are OK. However, it's very helpful to have all responses in one place.

Duplicate posting. Please put all responses at this link:

Just to clarify, is the QDRO to provide a portion of your benefit to her? If so, her inaction effectively means the draft QDRO has been rejected, and that might, eventually, be equivalent to "no QDRO". It would be in her interest to help get the QDRO finalized. If she stonewalls, that might be in your interest. My parents always described this as "consequences".

IMHO, no you should not agree to that condition. Why? because it might only be theoretical (nothing wrong with that), or it might mean there is a future possibility of a "retirement incentive" to him, a portion of which might apply to you. Since such incentives can take many forms, it's likely impossible to know today whether it really applies to your portion of the benefit later. By signing that generic waiver, you would (probably) lose even the possibility of some portion of a future incentive. I am not a lawyer; you should definitely make sure this issue is reviewed by a legal advisor who is familiar with QDROs. BTW, your statement "...QDRO was replaced with a different benefit plan" is ambiguous. Company bankruptcy does not necessarily alter the Plan, so you should have clear documentation of what happened and how it affects you. In writing.